Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought a wrongful-termination action against her former employer—the North Carolina Department of Justice—and two former supervisors in their official and individual capacities. The district court dismissed some claims as barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed the entirety of the complaint as time-barred.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the uncontested dismissal of the North Carolina Department of Justice and the uncontested dismissal of the official-capacity claims against the individual Defendants for money damages. But because the statute of limitations for the remaining claims is four years and not three years as the district court found, the court explained it must otherwise vacate the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the individual Defendants from the action.   The court explained that here, Plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action for wrongful termination in violation of Section 1981. A wrongful termination claim is based on post-contract-formation conduct. The court reasoned that as Defendants correctly recognized at oral argument, it would not have been possible for Plaintiff to bring this action prior to December 1, 1990, because, before that date, Section 1981 was limited to discrimination in contract formation and enforcement. In 1991, Congress expanded Section 1981 to include discrimination post-contract formation. Therefore, the 1991 amendment to Section 1981 “made possible” this Section 1983 action, and the four-year catchall statute of limitations provided by Section 1658 applies. View "Margaret Chambers v. North Carolina Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was dismissed from the Univeristy of Virginia's doctoral program after receiving poor grades. Plaintiff sued, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation based on interactions with his immediate supervisor. The district court granted the school's motion to dismiss and Plaintiff appealed.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that although his supervisor made derogatory comments about Plaintiff's national origin, they were not made in close proximity to the school's decision to dismiss Plaintiff. The supervisor made a "handful" of comments over the course of four years, none of which were close in time to the Plaintiff receiving poor grades or being dismissed from the program. View "Andreas Alberti v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the workers' compensation court of appeals (WCCA) affirming the findings and conclusions of the compensation judge determining that Employee was entitled to workers' compensation benefits because of her Gillette injury, holding that the WCCA's affirmance of the compensation judge's findings was not manifestly contrary to the evidence.Employee filed a claim petition alleging that she sustained a Gillette injury and sought workers' compensation benefits. The compensation judge ordered Employer to pay Employee benefits. The WCCA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCCA's findings, including the date Employee's injury occurred, when Employee was required to notify Employer of her injury, and the calculation of Employe's post-injury earning capacity, were not manifestly contrary to the evidence. View "Schmidt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants as to some of Plaintiff's claims and the judgment entered on the defense verdicts on Plaintiff's remaining defamation claims, holding that Plaintiff had not shown grounds for reversal.Plaintiff, the former principal at St. Joseph's Catholic School, brought this action against Father Josephs Pins, St. Joseph's Church, and the Diocese of Des Moines after her employment was terminated, alleging fraud and defamation by all defendants and breach of contract against Father Pins. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff's fraud, breach of contract, and defamation claims, and then a jury returned defense verdicts on the remaining defamation claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to reversal on his allegations of error. View "Konchar v. Pins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the district court and court of appeals that the workers' compensation commissioner erred in granting Employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Employee's review-reopening petition, holding that Employee was permitted to pursue a claim for a permanent injury in a review-reopening proceeding despite an earlier adjudication that her injury was not permanent.Employee was injured during the course and work of her employment. Employee filed a petition seeking workers' compensation for a permanent disability, but the deputy commissioner refused to order additional benefits beyond those that Employer had already paid. Employee filed a petition for review-reopening with the workers' compensation commission. The commission determined that Employee's claim for permanent disability benefits was barred by principles of res judicata. The district court reversed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agency erred in dismissing Employer's review-reopening petition. View "Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority" on Justia Law

The University's adjunct faculty taught individual classes on a semester-by-semester basis. Their appointment letters referred to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, specified a per-course salary, and estimated the number of work hours. Although the letters specified a work appointment from the first day of classes to the end of the semester, adjuncts were required to work outside of these time periods to prepare a syllabus and submit final grades. Adjuncts’ wage statements did not show the number of hours worked or an hourly pay rate.Gola brought claims for unpaid wages and failure to pay compensation at the time of discharge, citing work done outside of the assignment period and after the adjuncts’ “termination,” and alleged that the University failed to issue wage statements in compliance with Labor Code 226(a). Gola asserted a derivative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) seeking civil penalties.The trial court held that two causes of action were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 141) because they could not be resolved without interpreting the CBA. On the wage statement claim, the court concluded that adjuncts were not exempt employees and that the University was liable for penalties because it knew that facts existed bringing its actions within the provisions of section 226. The court calculated statutory damages and PAGA penalties and awarded Gola attorneys’ fees and costs. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that newly-enacted Labor Code 515.7—permitting employers to classify certain adjunct faculty as exempt from specified wage statement requirements—should be applied retroactively. View "Gola v. University of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Relator's petition in this original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the city of Sheffield Lake and its mayor (collectively, the city) to produce documents in response to a public records request sent by Relator, holding that Relator failed to establish that he was entitled to the requested relief.Relator, a city police officer and the city's only black officer at the time, submitted a public records request for records relating to an incident in which Anthony Campo, the city's former police chief, resigned after placing a "KKK" sign across the back of Relator's coat to cover the word "POLICE," donned a paper KKK hat and told Relator he should wear one on his next police call. The city provided only partial responses to the request. Relator then brought this mandamus action. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) the evidence showed that the city made reasonable efforts to locate the documents; and (2) Relator's requests for awards of statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs are also denied. View "State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s judgment dismissing all claims against Defendants-Newburgh Enlarged City School District, Superintendent, and Assistant Superintendent. Plaintiff, an African American woman of West Indian descent who served as principal of South Middle School, asserts claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Title VII claim to the extent the claim is based on alleged adverse employment actions in May 2019 and vacated the district court’s judgment to the extent it dismissed the Section 1983 claim and the remainder of the Title VII claim. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, including a determination as to whether Plaintiff should be provided with an extension of time to effectuate proper service as to the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent. The court explained that taking the allegations in the FAC as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the FAC meets that pleading standard with respect to the denial of the position for RISE administrator, the denial of her application to administer the summer-school program, and the termination of her position as SMS principal. Accordingly, the court explained that Plaintiff has stated plausible discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1983, and the district court erred in dismissing them. Therefore, Plaintiff may proceed with her Section 1983 claim as to all three alleged adverse employment actions and with her Title VII claim against the School District. View "Buon v. Spindler, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of Texas Government Code Section 808. He contends that Section 808’s divestment requirement violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The district court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing and dismissed his claims against the Texas Comptroller and the Texas Attorney General (collectively, “Defendants”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote it agreed with the district court that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his claims. Article III grants jurisdiction to federal courts only over actions involving an “actual case or controversy.” The court concluded that Plaintiff’s alleged injury is—at most—speculative; he has wholly failed to allege that any risk of economic harm is “certainly impending.” Because Plaintiff cannot show how any investment or divestment decisions will affect his future payments, he cannot show that he has suffered an injury. Further, the court found that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that Section 808 causes him an injury by violating his own personal Fourteenth or First Amendment rights. View "Abdullah v. Paxton" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising out of the application of a provision of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act known as the "assault exception" the Supreme Court held that the assault exception applied and that Relator Deangelo Profit was not entitled to recover workers' compensation benefits under the circumstances of this case.Profit suffered serious injuries when he was attacked at his job site by a mentally ill acquaintance while he was performing his work injuries. Profit sought workers' compensation benefits under Minn. Stat. 176.021, subd. 1, which are to awarded in cases "of personal injury or death of an employee arising out of and in the course of employment." The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals concluded that Profit was not entitled to recover benefits under the assault exception. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the assault exception did not apply where the assailant "intended to injure [Profit] because of personal reasons" and his acts were "not directed against the employee as an employee, or because of the employment." View "Profit v. HRT Holdings" on Justia Law